Gabital - Fantasy Capitalism 101 [Ongoing]

Posted on 29 December 2025, 18:01 by: onenightes

Uploader Comment

https://boosty.to/gabiconomics-en

Posted on 10 December 2024, 23:48 by: Thoromuerte

Anti-capitalist message, now on your favourite porn site!

Approved! :D

Posted on 11 December 2024, 01:41 by: SomeGuy91

actually, its very pro capitalist. "if you dont like the way it is, just do it yourself."
what it really doesnt like is CRONY capitalism where established buisness owners get special deals.

Posted on 11 December 2024, 02:50 by: Genoshia

@Thoromuerte This is pretty much exclusively pro-capitalism. Under capitalism, the correct solution to a bad boss is to stop working for them. The systems shown also allow Gabi to start her own business, instead of outright stopping her as would be the case in other economic structures.
Even her old boss takes the capitalist route in competing with her-so far-by trying to leverage his existing wealth as a means to out compete her. Instead of lobbying additional license requirements that ensures only his wheels are 'government approved,' which is how you'd compete in a more socialist system.

This doesn't denounce capitalism; It highlights the traps and pitfalls of it, shows how to get around them, and points out how capitalism is enabling the option to combat corruption by just being a better business.

Posted on 23 December 2024, 12:01 by: thatguy26

buncha gonner dipshits in the comments simping for the system that exploits them lmao

Posted on 23 December 2024, 14:47 by: Pedrobeartimon

thatguy26 acting like needing to take action yourself to fix a problem that you want fixed is wrong and other people should just do it for you

Posted on 10 January 2025, 20:58 by: Mason2

Goblin cute. Hope succeed.

Posted on 18 January 2025, 13:08 by: heretic1311

@AbusePuppy Capitalism isn´t "inherently nepotistic", POWER STRUCTURES are, you get nepotism in socialism and monarchism just as much as in capitalism.
If Capitalism is anything "inherently", then it´s MERITOCRATIC, and the socialist types hate that as it´s exclusive, making people unequal.
Monarchism CAN be meritocratic, but few monarchs are wise enough to make it work properly.

Key with the whole concept of Politics as a whole is that all boils down to a really simple idea: who owns what. That´s what politics is by definition.
And there are three big ideas on how it´s don:
1: first and oldest is Monarchism, the idea that everything belongs to ONE, usually the strongest and he decides how things are distributed
2: second, born as the exact opposite to Monarchism, is Socialism (the oldest form i know are the early Christians), it is the idea that EVERYONE owns EVERYTHING
3: the youngest form, mostly a result of the movement we call the "Enlightenment", Capitalism is the idea that you own the fruits of your labor and are free to exchange them at your own free will with others, hence referred to as "Free Market"

Each of these basic forms has a LOT of variations in which is was attempted to implement them.

And i REALLY didn´t expect a political discussion on a PORN SITE O.o

Posted on 19 January 2025, 04:29 by: Ignitation

This is great.. I've actually learning alot about business (Beat going to the business school, But also realize why these schools are so damn popular too). Also I get it now why there are so much bandit, highwaymen or smuggler to begin with in first place. The system totally crushing the "little guys" to the point they can't dare to hope on resurfacing from the system!!

Also I can see many "opportunities" for an easy favors to be taken on business dealing and how these plot point can be very relevant to the story progression as well.

Posted on 19 January 2025, 06:21 by: RabidTanker

Come to think of it, has anyone ever did an thesis entirely through an comic?

Posted on 19 January 2025, 09:41 by: Genoshia

Ah yes, a classic depiction of the Socialist ideal! Starting a socialist system, not by going somewhere free of industry and starting from the ground up, but by operating as a single socialist entity within an existing capitalist structure.
Handily side-steps the inherent negative of a fully socialist structure dealing poorly with bad actors by giving the illusion that the bad actors only exist as employers in other companies. Surely no one with bad intentions would abuse this structure Gabi is creating by, say, getting a bunch of their friends to sign on and then vote Gabi and Falke out of the company so that they essentially steal all the wealth the two invested in the company initially. Especially not just as a means to sell everything the two worked hard to create and produce by themselves to competition to make quick cash.
Obviously, scam-artists only exist at the business-owner level, and no lower!

Posted on 01 February 2025, 21:28 by: JunkAlot

Politics? On my porn site?

Although, the goblin girls are kind of cute. I can fap to this.

Posted on 05 February 2025, 19:15 by: Saladburger

Anti-capitalist message on a site where people advertise their Patreon for first-try AI art which required 2 prompts.

Posted on 16 February 2025, 10:19 by: PoorWhiteTrash

Gabi reaches the Sam Vimes stage of class consciousness: Boots.

Posted on 21 February 2025, 14:48 by: Villhadig

@Pedrobeartimon
Are we talking about socialism or capitalism here? Cause if we were to look at the relation of people with production in capitalism you would be pretty much describing it spot on. A mass of people are forced to provide for the wealth of others (the small minority of owners of production). Many might say "Oh but it is a choice you make to work for them, you can just chose not to work there at all." but this is just plain false, how much freedom of choice do we have really under capitalism? We have a set of very basic needs we need to fullfill: food and shelter. In a capitalist society both of these require money as the absolute vast majority of people do not have the means of self-sufficiency. Land is often privately or state owned which prohibits hunting or foraging from them by the public and is expensive to buy something you could realistically survive off on, so there isn't really much choice not to work for a wage to survive, not to mention even if you own a land there are costs involved to actually building a shelter then on it.

So we need to work to make a wage to eat and live. We don't really have much of a choice in capitalism, it's either sell our labour for cheap to the rich or starve. That's not a choice, that's a gun put to our head by the capitalists, a gun that won't kill us instantly but slowly starve us to death instead if we don't abide by their rules. Is that truly then any different from the nightmare image people have of having to work under socialism?

"Why not open your own business?" is a common question, most of which is pretty much answered in this very comic: it's hard to compete in a market especially where we have such advanced production techniques that massive corporations can produce everything at a vastly cheaper price in massive amounts to fullfill needs. You need to then be fullfilling a very specific marketable niche which, let's be absolutely real here, most of us have not the skill for. So then it's wage labour for most of us.

"Why not work somewhere else for better pay?" That is just switching which exploiter I sell my labour to and the reality is for the vast majority of us, we can't afford to take that risk of saying "No, I don't want this job and I am simply gonna go somewhere else". Many people live on paycheck to paycheck now in this economy. Kicking your job to hope to find another with an uncertain timeframe as to when you will ever get a new one is too risky of a gamble for more and more people.

So, in the end, I dunno exactly what your argument is but if it's that people would be "forced" to provide for others under socialism (which is a scaremonger argument from capitalists): we are forced to make a tiny minority of people rich today, how is that any better?

Posted on 04 March 2025, 23:33 by: Genoshia

@Villhadig The difference is pretty much what you described; Under capitalism, even if the choices are not always ideal, they still exist. Under communism* that choice is removed. You do not get to decide who you work for, regardless of whether or not the compensation for your labor fails to meet your needs, because you don't own the rights to your own labor under that structure.
Capitalism doesn't promise that you'll succeed if you try to start your own business, or if you give up your job to find a better one. It only promises that you will have the option to try. What you seem to be failing to realize is just how highly the majority of people value having that option.
The main reason for this, of course, being that basically any alternative system will not be led by omniscient beacons of moral purity. They will be led by other people, and the instant one of those people proves themselves to be a bad actor, the entirety of the system will suffer for it. At the end of the conversation, most people would rather gamble on their own efforts and actions deciding their fate, than leaving it in the hands of a gaggle of people whom they've never met, and whom also have an active and obvious incentive to abuse their power for self gain.

*What you're calling socialism, despite the fact that the majority of socialist countries in the world today are actively embracing capitalist economic structures, because rebranding communism as socialism is a classic communist tactic

Posted on 13 March 2025, 22:53 by: Genoshia

@Villhadig I'm going to stop you at your second line; Your argument is predicated on sighting Karl Marx as an authority on socialism and communism. He isn't. Communism, as an economic principal, existed well before Marx. I will not argue that he did not have an impact on how people view communism in the modern day, as he Did do that, but his ideas only impacted modern communism. They do not define it, and going forward under the assumption that Marx is the only authority is baseless. It does not mean 'stateless and classless society,' as Marx described it, because you can have both authoritarian and libertarian versions of communist societies. Communism, as defined in its modern usage, just means a society where all things are owned equally by all citizens. If you do not accept that fact, you're not unlike the majority of communist supporters, but you're also not a realist and I don't deal with fanatics.

Socialism, especially, existed long before Marx and calling him an authority on modern socialist ideals is laughably incorrect. Contrary to the tale you're actively trying to spin, socialism can easily exist under both authoritarian and libertarian principals, and modern socialist policies can easily exist within an otherwise largely capitalist society. Socialist parties and people have been aiming towards more socialist societies without the ultimate goal of achieving communism for literal centuries. This conversation is not a black-and-white one, as many people who use the exact rhetoric you're exhibiting try to make it out to be. Much the same way as there is no 'pure' capitalist society in the modern world, no one is attempting to achieve a 'pure' socialist or communist society. Some people, like you, might advocate for one, but no government on the planet is actually moving in that direction.

What you're actively trying to do is re-brand the terms to mean something they don't mean, in practice, because you don't like how the modern world uses them in comparison to the Marxist fantasy world he conjured up to promote his ideals. Marxism will never come to pass, because once you hit the Billions of people mark, there's no way that you'll achieve any form of economic activity without distributing resources according to Some individual or groups authority on deciding who gets what, because there are resources on this planet that are limited and some group that has 'need' of them will always go without.
Not even mentioning all the other pitfalls Marx's fantasy world could never over come for practical reasons, like bad actors within the society.

Moving on:
You're also wrong about capitalism; Capitalism doesn't promise anything, it's an economic system that just means wealth is distributed based on a free market. Proponents of capitalism under a more authoritarian society uphold it, not as an ideal economic system, but as the best available to us as a result of innate human flaws. The main 'upside' of authoritarian capitalism-a free market with restrictions placed on it by a government to ensure the market remains actually free, and not dominated by monopoly-is that it always offers the individual the freedom to choose.
You are not guaranteed a fortune in exchange for hard work; You're also not guaranteed poverty if you never work a day in your life. All you are guaranteed is the option to decide what You do with Your labor, and Your money.
Unfortunately, humans are flawed, and some will devote their labor to endeavors that will not result in great wealth, or even really much wealth at all. Likewise, there are those who will decide to devote their wealth to their children in the form of handing them a business they worked hard to create without any guarantee that said business will flourish under their child's ownership. This creates a host of problems, of course, but that's the price of giving people the freedom to choose. Some people will make poor decisions; However, that will be true regardless of what type of economic system we live in.
Personally, I'd prefer to live in a society where I own my own labor, and how I spend my labor and the wealth generated by it is my decision. The fact that people like me exist-and the lack of evidence that we will never cease to exist-is the main reason Marx's fantasy will never come to pass. Even if you somehow created that system, eventually generations will pass and more people will be born who want the rights to their labor back.

Posted on 15 March 2025, 18:09 by: adamnemo42

@Villhadig
Just a minor correction but libertarian was originally a socialist term. It was co-opted by hypercapitalists in the US so there the association is with the ideology you understand it to mean.

Posted on 13 May 2025, 12:50 by: Neeckin

Dude crossed the picket line and gave their wheel design to the enemy? Good way to get your legs busted walking home at night

Posted on 14 May 2025, 00:54 by: dsadsadsadsa

Is he doing the fucking Freddie Mercury pose on page 49?

Posted on 19 May 2025, 21:43 by: jlt314

As a minor point, the "Chief" is a too literal translation of "шеф". "Boss" would be more accurate.
Also, Gabi's full name is "Gabital", pun on "Capital" by Marx intended according to the author.
Also note the "education" and "corruption" pages. BTW, the translators skipped the pages dedicated to Labour Day (May 1St) and Victory Day (May 9th).

Posted on 20 May 2025, 00:53 by: Draupnir7

So... where is the consumer choice? I'm noticing a lack of that, as though a lower price is an inviolable natural force of attraction for coin and not one data point of several that informs a purchase.
Am I also to assume that nobody in the city observed the pricing war occur, let alone the fell-out-of-the-Antagonists-R-Us-bargain-bin-lookin'-ass caricature posing obnoxiously? Or that if someone did notice it, they drew no conclusions? Appearance is also a data point, and the owner of a company conducting himself like a twat in public is a strong one, and would turn people off from a purchase. Unless you remove the concept of consumer choice.

Posted on 28 May 2025, 17:32 by: 写生战士

Jesus Christ I'm so fucking want to fuck her with my fucking hard dick

Posted on 31 May 2025, 21:01 by: william1024

Page 38 (image 42): Ah, the good old Vimes Boot Theory.

Posted on 31 May 2025, 23:47 by: Dynamite Ninja

Gabi is gonna encounter the key problem in any collective - size.
If she's successful, she should be expanding her business to capitalise on her success. The fact she gets to any success means she is a logical actor who would make that decision, and if she isn't, other members of the collective would push for this because, net, they are logical.
Size leads to complexity as more functions are performed. After a certain point, managing the whole group is impossible for a single manager, and administrative systems are formed to deal with this.
This is precisely the time when contrary interests begin to emerge - the presence of administration, whatever form it takes (bureaucracy, democracy, collectivism, whathaveyou), means there is a simple mechanism to affect the dynamics of the whole system. A self interested entity who can understand this administration sufficiently - play the politics - can begin to adjust it for their own end, thus the interests of the collective do not align with the interests of the individual.
This can be divided into two cases - either the collective is unopposed, or there exist other entities the collective engages with. In the former, collective performance may reward someone less than them absorbing functions in the hierarchy to enable corruption outside "fair" system set up for them. Thus a de-facto, but not de-jure external entity is formed, necessarily parasitic. Any communist government expresses this, with the famous maddening politics and corruption of "the party". In the latter, betrayal of the collective to an external aggressor may become quite beneficial.
This is resolved well with the company cooperating on a spinout, if possible - to make the external de-jure. In this case, a new entity is formed with its own incentives, but the original collective aligns its interests with the new one. There are numerous ways to achieve this, including rent, shares, client relationships, etc. Here we run into the problem of socialism - it denies this option.
Each mechanism of multi-entity alignment is a capitalistic one, where the work produced by one entity is converted into abstract tokens and traded to another. This abstractification and free dynamics is important because it permits freedom of the entities that can be generated, while minimising administrative overhead to just managing the abstract object, permitting entities to specialise and thus making this system scalable.
Obvious an outcome of this is, yes, the hierarchies of a capitalist system, but these hierarchies are integrated to the wider system, stimulating it. It may be an adversarial relationship, but it is not parasitic, because they use the tools of the system. A socialist system *necessarily* forces such players to operate around the system. In fact, the communist ideal of a "glorious revolution" forgets that such system disruption is not removable from a communist system. Once entrenched, the revolution simply happens in a fractionalised way - this is, by definition, corruption. The alternative proposed was the "eternal revolution", but this is just a fancy term for what the Mongols did, and they called it by its real name, "ransacking Europe and Asia for centuries". Eventually you run out of other countries, and the former problem establishes itself.
It's not really the question of "is capitalism a better system" - it is *the* system. It is *the* mechanism by which interest conflict is reconciled. If you can propose another system that effectively permits two entities to be COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO ONE ANOTHER and still engage in the same mutually beneficial system, I will show you how you either fail to meet these precise conditions or you have defined capitalism.
Ironically, the BIG concern should be the already powerful entities trying to ESTABLISH anything socialist or undermine capitalism, as, given they have resources and dominance, in this system they control the boundaries of a given system. Then, when they own that, they have the ability to truly parasitise the original system, eventually destroying it.
Managing the respective rates of schism and consolidation which mutually check one another to ensure this doesn't happen is the job of a central bank. The problem of course then is that all neutral bodies eventually become corrupt (as explained earlier), so the same dynamics have to occur at the administrative level. We arrive at geopolitical competition. And so on and so on and so on. As long as the eternal revolution is well managed with layers of common negotiation mechanisms, then no problem.
Now we go back to the collective. Participating in this battle for dominance - the key distraction and mitigative factor against the destruction of the common capitalist system (and participating in this battle is baked into the dynamics of a healthy economy and business performance, like it or not - local buyouts of failing business are a step into that direction) - is best achieved by resource maximisation. And sharing and sharing and sharing resources with the growing collective cuts out profits from the individuals most skills at leveraging those assets, which should be invested in protecting the collective. A conflict. This is either resolved by being outcompeted, or stopping the asset dilution and ensuring the decisionmakers keep the assets. Enter: the shareholders, and the nonshareholding employees. Of course, this arises not from this kind of thinking, but self-interest, but this whole system is based on self interested actors. "But what if we weren't self interested", I hear you ask? Well, Little Timmy - then you would die and leave no progeny, while the self interested actor does, and so it would have to become a system of self interested actors.
And that is why Gabi is going to have her idealism (which makes her an excellent small business owner) be slapped in the face with the difficulties of progressing to the mid-sized business owner.
And so concludes your masterclass into dynamic complex multiagent systems applied to economics.

Posted on 01 June 2025, 17:12 by: erana

Page 60, last panel, her face: "Forget all this crap about economics! LET'S TALK ABOUT YURI!"

Posted on 02 June 2025, 18:48 by: FeaturedOn

If you want to endear the public to your cause, employ a lisping anthropomorphic reptile woman in a maid's uniform whose expressive eyes and blushing elation overcome her Blemished Beauty.

EZ PZ

Posted on 30 June 2025, 11:21 by: erana

Calling it now - we're gonn have a depiction of market crash and hiperinflation, followed by refuge in precious metals, followed by buy-out

Posted on 23 July 2025, 00:46 by: Genoshia

@Garma Zabi Yea, communism sucks that way, but some people are die-hard supporters. At least under properly run capitalism the worst you can end up in is debt. Communism or socialism? You failed to meet your quota, off to the gulag for you.

Posted on 03 August 2025, 20:49 by: mastersnipe25

have you ever heard about Holodomor , @Villhadig ? It was a man-made famine that occurred in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933, resulting in the deaths of millions of Ukrainians.
The famine was primarily caused by the policies of Joseph Stalin, including the forced collectivization of agriculture and the imposition of unrealistic grain quotas.
These policies led to the seizure of grain and other food supplies from Ukrainian farmers, exacerbating the famine and leading to widespread starvation.
But i guess capitalism is worse.

Posted on 14 August 2025, 20:43 by: SilkySlime

Came for the snu snu, stayed for the lectures and debates.
I fucking love this community.
I'm bookmarking this page for when it snowballs into "The Capital: Reloaded".

Posted on 15 August 2025, 00:20 by: Neeckin

Every time I see an update I'm worried it's gonna be some horrible twist

Posted on 15 August 2025, 01:01 by: Genoshia

@mastersnipe25 Best not to engage with Villhadig. He's a fanatic. His entire argument amounts to 'capitalism isn't perfect, therefore communism is superior.' Ignoring the many, Many examples of the failures of communism throughout the years, its obvious failings as a system meant to be used by humans, and the fact that the wealthiest countries in the world all embraced capitalist heavy economic structures.

He's also convinced this is a pro-communist comic, despite the fact what's being depicted is an entrepreneur breaking into a stagnating market with superior methodologies, and not hordes of starving peasants overthrowing a monopoly through armed revolution to 'seize the means of production.' Because someone doesn't understand the concept of a worker-cooperative, and how they're a product of a free market and would fail utterly under a communist regime.

Posted on 29 August 2025, 17:56 by: Lord_neah

2 points :

When did pretty goblin lady joined Gabi crew ?

Anyone else noticed we didn't heard of chief since he went to trade gold for paper?

Posted on 08 September 2025, 03:57 by: Genoshia

Yep, these latest comics pretty much staple it down.

This comic isn't pro-communist propaganda. If anything, it's libertarian.

All the issues and woes faced by the protagonist come from two sources; The government- who imposes taxes, forces inspections, and shifts from gold currency to paper- and the existing moguls, who use their hordes of wealth to manipulate the market in their favor- not for the purpose of improving their business, and thus using profits to expand and innovate, but simply to maintain market dominance.

Notably, the comic does not portray these people as evil. More importantly, while they are antagonistic, they are not directly hostile. Chief is still willing to rent out his property to what is definitively his competition. The other business people, while not willing to provide the best deals to Gabi and friends, never outright refuse her business. All the issues Gabi faces trying to expand are natural road blocks in any business venture, exacerbated not by a ruling class refusing outright to allow her participation, but simply by the inherent flaws of systems that existing economic entities have learn to overcome.

Despite that, Gabi continues to succeed. It's difficult, but not impossible. While this comic does highlight some of the failings of capitalist structures, it never even suggests that those systems need to be torn down and replaced for the good of the 'common man.' Social issues are hardly even addressed, with the focus being instead of depictions of actual economic issues within capitalist structures.

All this leads me to the clear conclusion that the point of this comic is not that capitalism is bad; Instead, its purpose is to decry the failings of corporate capitalism, both in how it enables failing business models to maintain power by hording wealth and taking advantage of the poor business choices of others, and how those same problems are exacerbated by an uncaring government.
Gabi doesn't want to rise up and overthrow the Proletariat. Gabi wants a purely free market, unhindered by taxes and other pointless hurdles to good business deals. After all, so long as everyone is happy with their end of the deal, everyone profits. More wheels for everyone, and more cupcakes for Gabi.

EDIT: And (State) Racketeering is the nail in the coffin. I've not brought it up before, but this comic has additional dialogue on the actual posts that go along with each one and 'explains' the concept behind it. The most recent one explains that governmental fines are basically racketeering. Associating racketeering with legal fines is basically ascribing theft to taxation, which is a hallmark of libertarian talking points.

Last edited on 23 September 2025, 00:49.

Posted on 21 September 2025, 21:55 by: Neeckin

This is always such a mildly depressing comic. Every other page is a little kick to the shin

Posted on 22 September 2025, 22:29 by: erana

This comment section is a goldmine of laughs.

Posted on 10 October 2025, 16:39 by: Nekeku

I'm an idiot for engaging with the comments but whatever.

The author references economic concepts and illustrates criticisms of capitalism on every page, agree or disagree, they know enough about economics to have their mind made up that capitalism is bad, they aren't just a poor mistaken liberal.

The characters form a cooperative enterprise because, while it isn't perfect and requires engaging with the capitalist market, it's an immediately available potential means of alleviating suffering under capitalism and developing cooperative practices and social consciousness that can lead to greater change later.

What else would they do? They can't overthrow the state with their numbers. They can't just walk away and make their own town, because all the land is owned by somebody and they'd be charged with trespassing and violently removed.

Capitalism isn't freedom and Econ 101 doesn't explain or justify everything. Market exchanges aren't voluntary when it's the only way for someone to get what they need. People don't have equal resources and power. Market exchanges aren't logically always mutually beneficial because people don't have perfect information, perfect reason, and the superhuman ability to foresee all future consequences. People can fucking lie. In more practical terms, you live in a society where the only way to get the things you need is by spending money, and the only viable way for most people to get money is to work for someone else, and that puts you at the mercy of rich bastards, which isn't freedom.

If you're going to say that deaths caused by failures of central planning 90 years ago are the fault of communism, then you need to acknowledge that people die of poverty today under capitalism. The USA is the richest country in the world, and tens of thousands die homeless every year, more die because they can't afford healthcare they need, more die of suicide or drug overdose before they reach that point.

Posted on 01 November 2025, 01:15 by: Genoshia

Because I'm getting tired of this argument;

Quoted directly from the author's own page, on boosty @https://boosty.to/art.duende : " Меня зовут Тимур, и я рисую "Габитал" - комикс о трудностях капитализма в фэнтезийном сеттинге.
Вместе с очаровательной гоблиншей Габи мы познакомимся с основными проблемами фэнтезийного капиталистического общества и попробуем их решить. "

Translated: " My name is Timur, and I draw "Gabital"—a comic about the challenges of capitalism in a fantasy setting.
Together with the charming goblin Gabi, we'll explore the main problems of fantasy capitalist society and try to solve them. "

Author's intent, in their own words: "Explore the main problems of fantasy capitalist society and try to solve them."

The intent of the comic is pro-capitalist, with a focus on exploring the problems with capitalism and how to Solve Them. Not 'destroy' the system, or overthrow the capitalist society. Fix the problems that exist. Something capitalists regularly discuss and debate over; Defining what the specific failings of certain capitalist societies are, and how to solve the problems they create.

Posted on 14 November 2025, 01:36 by: mastersnipe25

@Villhadig still in porn site, sure do you want cunt, im not winnie the pooh from china, but you still arguing with strangers on this comic shows how much of loser and no life you have. you think Cunty mcfaggot Musk is the only one exploiting people? China baby!

Posted on 17 November 2025, 19:16 by: erana

This comment section keeps being a goldmine of laughs.

Posted on 19 November 2025, 21:19 by: rocketdrive

@dagger69
using the "we're only as bad as you" argument is really not helping your case here, cause best case scenario AS PROUDLY DECLARED BY YOU communism can ONLY be as good as the worst of capitalism.

really not selling your case.

Try using an argument referencing real numbers and real data instead of your red rose colored stalinism glasses that say communism can NEVER do anything wrong. Not even sure how you think "communism never did anything wrong" is a viable argument.

or are you so delusional you think the ONLY reason communism continues to fail it's users is simply because "they didnt do it right"?

Perhaps I should remind you even the poorest in America are richer than most in the undeveloped world, and in some ways richer than those under current communism. It is currently about 13$ to visit karl marx's grave.

Posted on 25 November 2025, 21:13 by: Nekeku

If you're this mad after spending nearly a year arguing about communism with the same handful of people who don't even know what the word means, maybe it's time to stop.

I think the world would be a better place if we shared and cooperated more equally, and I think one day we'll figure out how to do it.

Posted on 15 December 2025, 01:51 by: erana

Did I say that this comment's section was a goldmine of laughs? I stand corrected. This is past a goldmine- it's a storm of hilarity, an hurricane of laughs, a constant shower of hilariously uneducated comments by people with far more love of their prose than knowledge of what they pontificate about.
And in betwen, the patrician shirtless gobbo admirers. @Lord_neah, a fellow person of culture.
The rest of you, never change, guys. Not that you could.

Last edited on 26 December 2025, 00:54.

Posted on 15 December 2025, 04:29 by: PlayBoi Tiffany

The cover doesn't match the comment section, that's for sure ╮(╯▽╰)╭

Posted on 17 December 2025, 06:00 by: rocketdrive

and the communist suddenly admits he's a staunch Hitler supporter. No wonder your entire political system breaks under it's own weight. The most successful communist regime could only work under an entire culture of self perpetuating corruption.

It is currently about 13$ to visit karl marx's grave by the ACTIVE CHOICE of your own believers.

Posted on 25 December 2025, 19:33 by: Lord_neah

Can we have a page with all their names? Most of them have only nicknames in my head so far xD

Posted on 26 December 2025, 03:12 by: Thisismythirdaccount

Anyone that thinks this is pro-capitalist is an idiot or rage-baiting lmao

Posted on 26 December 2025, 11:17 by: Morpheistos

@rocketdrive => when did they said they are supporting hitler ? and i don't understand what you mean regarding the karl marx's grave either :/ the grave's management structure isn't in a communist country as far as i know ^^" (or the brexit was more drastic than i thought ^^ )

Last edited on 26 December 2025, 11:58.

Posted on 29 December 2025, 18:08 by: lexninja

卧槽，为什么能在e站看到这个

Posted on 29 December 2025, 18:35 by: t965433t

this comic...so dark

Posted:	2025-12-29 18:01
Parent:	3703847
Visible:	Yes
Language:	English
File Size:	541.8 MiB
Length:	85 pages
Favorited:	876 times

language:	english
female:	freckles gloves goblin lizard girl midget monster girl
other:	comic western non-h

Rating:		224
Average: 4.76